Attorneys to get financial help
Next week, the board of the Texas Access to Justice Foundation will sit down and decide how to divvy out $53,000 to attorneys who assisted with the FLDS case.
Back in April, some 400 lawyers from around Texas stepped up to represent the 439 children and their mothers after the state raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Most did it knowing they were likely offering assistance on a pro bono basis, for free.
''The lawyers who have gone out there are going out there with the understanding they may never be paid a dime for it,'' said Tom Vick in April. Vick is a family practice attorney and member of the Access to Justice Foundation. He helped recruit the lawyers.
The other big unknown at the time: what kind of assistance they might be asked to provide? And, for how long?
Surely, none imagined their involvement would require such frequent trips to San Angelo or travel throughout the state to visit children placed in foster care. But that is how it turned out and many of the volunteer attorneys took quite a financial hit.
''It went way beyond what anybody's expectation was,'' Vick told me the other day.
Since June, when the children were returned to their parents, a few attorneys have put pleas in court filings that asked Judge Barbara Walther to order parents or the county to pay their fees. That's allowed under Texas family law. The expectation is that the expenses will go to the county.
Sheryl Johnson-Todd of Hanson, Texas, had filed such a motion but agreed to not seek payment from the parents when the state dismissed the cases involving the children she represented.
''We have all had a lot of expenditures, both in terms of time and travel expenses visiting the children,'' she said.
Frank Douthitt, a solo practitioner in Henrietta, Texas, also put in a request for payment in a recent court pleading as an ''ancillary matter'' with no real expectation of receiving funds.
''If she doesn't pay me I won't be mad,'' Douthitt said of Walther. ''In this case, I, along with some 400 other lawyers, volunteered to help knowing we might never get paid. I was damn proud of the lawyers in Texas that stepped up in this case.''
Both are the type of attorneys the Texas Access to Justice Foundation may be able to help out.
Betty Balli Torres, executive director, said the foundation raised $53,000 in private donations and grants to help reimburse certain costs such as fuel expenditures, copying costs, hotel and meal expenses.
The foundation specifically wants to help attorneys who were not buffered by association with a firm and who had to put aside paying clients to assist in the FLDS case.
Just a fraction of the attorneys involved in the case, 43, representing a total of 97 children, put in requests for help totalling $43,600, Torres said.
''These are solo practitioners for the most part,'' Torres said. ''I am not sure we will pay them all but we have enough to do it.''
And that may be a big help to Schleicher County.
Schleicher County received a $68,000 grant from the state last spring to help cover expenses for meals, equipment and personnel during the raid at the ranch. The state also approved an as-needed grant of up to $58,000 to cover other expenses, such as an extra court clerk, a computer upgrade and travel to San Angelo.
Neither of those grants can be used for attorneys fees, however.
Schleicher County Treasurer Karen Henderson said Tuesday she has not received any bills for attorneys fees but expects to get a slew of them.
So far, Walther has approved payments for the two people who acted as administrators for the attorneys: Randol Stout and Carmen Dusek. Henderson said she had not yet received a bill from them.
But Henderson expects other attorneys bills to pour in and ''it's going to be pretty sizable.
''We are working on trying to get money from the state to pay those attorneys' fees,'' she said. ''That is still in the works.''
Back in April, some 400 lawyers from around Texas stepped up to represent the 439 children and their mothers after the state raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Most did it knowing they were likely offering assistance on a pro bono basis, for free.
''The lawyers who have gone out there are going out there with the understanding they may never be paid a dime for it,'' said Tom Vick in April. Vick is a family practice attorney and member of the Access to Justice Foundation. He helped recruit the lawyers.
The other big unknown at the time: what kind of assistance they might be asked to provide? And, for how long?
Surely, none imagined their involvement would require such frequent trips to San Angelo or travel throughout the state to visit children placed in foster care. But that is how it turned out and many of the volunteer attorneys took quite a financial hit.
''It went way beyond what anybody's expectation was,'' Vick told me the other day.
Since June, when the children were returned to their parents, a few attorneys have put pleas in court filings that asked Judge Barbara Walther to order parents or the county to pay their fees. That's allowed under Texas family law. The expectation is that the expenses will go to the county.
Sheryl Johnson-Todd of Hanson, Texas, had filed such a motion but agreed to not seek payment from the parents when the state dismissed the cases involving the children she represented.
''We have all had a lot of expenditures, both in terms of time and travel expenses visiting the children,'' she said.
Frank Douthitt, a solo practitioner in Henrietta, Texas, also put in a request for payment in a recent court pleading as an ''ancillary matter'' with no real expectation of receiving funds.
''If she doesn't pay me I won't be mad,'' Douthitt said of Walther. ''In this case, I, along with some 400 other lawyers, volunteered to help knowing we might never get paid. I was damn proud of the lawyers in Texas that stepped up in this case.''
Both are the type of attorneys the Texas Access to Justice Foundation may be able to help out.
Betty Balli Torres, executive director, said the foundation raised $53,000 in private donations and grants to help reimburse certain costs such as fuel expenditures, copying costs, hotel and meal expenses.
The foundation specifically wants to help attorneys who were not buffered by association with a firm and who had to put aside paying clients to assist in the FLDS case.
Just a fraction of the attorneys involved in the case, 43, representing a total of 97 children, put in requests for help totalling $43,600, Torres said.
''These are solo practitioners for the most part,'' Torres said. ''I am not sure we will pay them all but we have enough to do it.''
And that may be a big help to Schleicher County.
Schleicher County received a $68,000 grant from the state last spring to help cover expenses for meals, equipment and personnel during the raid at the ranch. The state also approved an as-needed grant of up to $58,000 to cover other expenses, such as an extra court clerk, a computer upgrade and travel to San Angelo.
Neither of those grants can be used for attorneys fees, however.
Schleicher County Treasurer Karen Henderson said Tuesday she has not received any bills for attorneys fees but expects to get a slew of them.
So far, Walther has approved payments for the two people who acted as administrators for the attorneys: Randol Stout and Carmen Dusek. Henderson said she had not yet received a bill from them.
But Henderson expects other attorneys bills to pour in and ''it's going to be pretty sizable.
''We are working on trying to get money from the state to pay those attorneys' fees,'' she said. ''That is still in the works.''
154 Comments:
Bah! That doesn't even cover the cost of gas, much less other costs.
IM very proud of Texas Attorneys who gave of themselves and their time, whether paid or pro bono.
Whether I agreed with them or not. They saw a need and made every effort to meet that need.
Texas is a good place, with lots of Good people who are always giving of their time, themselves and their expertise, alot of it is free.
I take back half the lawyer jokes I've told.
The other half stays with the ones that kept this travesty going.
"...The expectation is that the expenses will go to the county."
But it was NOT Judge Johnny's party, just ask him!
****
"So far, Walther has approved payments for the two people who acted as administrators for the attorneys: Randol Stout and Carmen Dusek."
A couple of outstanding professionals. Who else stepped forward and demanded that the state take away all those cell phones, some cam phones. I bet walther wants to pay them double flp they gave to prevent obstruction of justice! They didn't need to talk to their attorneys, they still had the final hearing.
That should read:
"...pay them double FOR ALL THE PROFESSIONAL HELP they gave to prevent obstruction of justice!"
Cordless key board batteries evidently low again.
ALL the attorneys should put in bills so that the entire cost of this fiasco can be calculated. It would be good to see how an agency running amuck, a biased judge, a law enforcement that does not follow the law, and a town that demonstrates hatred toward a religion have truly cost the State of Texas...and yes, since the prejudice and hatred starts at the top, Texas should pay the attorneys. If they didn't persecute the FLDS NONE of these costs would be incurred.
Go Attorneys!
Anyone know if Malonis has her hand out or has her free publicity and Nancy Grace appearances been enough payment?
Malonis is no longer at the father / son law firm of Elsey and Elsey.
She's now working at what looks to be a one-man office.
So I'd guess that "her free publicity and Nancy Grace appearances" was not enough to make her boss happy.
I have little doubt she could explain it all using "what if's" to make it look like she's advancing in her career!
kbp assumes on absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Malonis was asked to leave her former law office.
The removal of cell phones was not an attempt to separate the women from THEIR lawyers, it was an attempt to separate the women from the lawyers of the priesthood.
Maybe I am incorrect in my "guess" there Betty.
Maybe the one-man office of Reib Law was so AMAZED by "her free publicity and Nancy Grace appearances" that he out bid the father / son office of Elsey and Elsey to get her into his office.
...or maybe not, as one would anticipate that if she was such a hot commodity in the legal world, she'd have told of having PARTNERED with him instead of simply "associated".
Why don't you write natalie @ reiblaw dot com and clear it all up so nobody will have to "assume" any more!
On the cell phone matter, you miss a few points there. The order came immediately AFTER pictures were made public and the women have the right to talk to an attorney that represents them as members of their church.
Read the ORDER. That "prevent" was just another Texas Pre-Crime move that is BS, resembling what the higher courts ruled was NOT legal.
"pre-crime move"
We're living in the world of the Minority Report, without the "precogs." Well, maybe Malonis is a precog...
Kdp,
Weird cause Natalie Malonis is still an attorney at Elsey/Elsey I just looked, her name is there in right along with the father and son.
Maybe you should go look?
Kdp, Why dont you write Reib law firm if you are so interested, lol
Kdp
Go back and reread the ORDER, it wasnt cps or Judge Walther who was concerned about tampering with witnesses through cells phone communications, it was Ad Litems that requested the order.
the original order is a mute point by now - its six months later. in my opinion, it would be nice of the state of texas to reimburse those attorneys that went above and beyond what they thought they were going to do when they volunteered to be ad litem in this case. it was cps and the state that decide to split up family units all across the state of texas and make it harder on everyone involved. like song of joy stated lets know they real cost of this raid by adding up the ALL of state's costs with the ad litems personal costs. its got to be over 20 million which could have gone to much better use in the whole state of texas.
Rain
Texas decided the abuse happening in YFZ ranch was worth the cost. As do many Texans.
Attorneys knew goin in there would be costs, they had an opportunity to step away anytime they wanted.
Lots of the attorneys who volunteered werent even family law attorneys. They had to take a short course before they could volunteer.
I see that the state is using testimony obtained from the mothers and children, before they were able to, or offered, legal counsel. All that testimony can and should be quashed.
marrie...the *alleged* abuse.
Marrie,
Natalie is the one that announced her change of employment. I doubt Elsey and Elsey has updated their web site.
On the Order, it was those assigned to oversee the Ad Litems by the STATE OF TEXAS. If they were ONLY acting as Ad Litems, their concerns would ONLY be for those they had as clients.
They obtained an Order that applied to all 465+/- children that were improperly held in custody. They did not represent all the children or "all adults within the shelter" in which all the "electronic communication devices, including but not limited to cellular telephones, PDAs and smartphones" were removed from.
It was one of many moves "EX PARTE" that the in-crowd saw in walther's court, while she continues to this day to ignore motions filed by attorneys NOT within that group.
*****
Ztgstmv,
The State of Texas, by way of the DFPS web site, announced the court had "CONCLUDED" the abuse by April 7th. BEFORE any court held a hearing. The Pre-Crime Department had Pre-Concluded the outcome!.
z-you're doing an apples and oranges thing, here...
you're applying standards used in criminal investigations to a child protective case....
totally different...same rights don't apply...like questioning children without parents present...
or informing parents of a right to counsel before questioning...
these things are just not required in child protective cases....
wouldn't it be nice if, in order for an atty to be compensated, the parent or child represented had to stipulate that the atty represented their wishes.....
Wouldnt it be nice if People paid attorneys instead of getting services FREE!
Flds seems to be able to pay for all the suits of UEP and Parker law firm, but they cant afford to pay for attorneys for their children?
All adults had the right to counsel.
The next question will be what authority the CPS used in questioning the children. Which brings us back to the truthfulness of that "saving Sarah" approach.
Excuse me reric, but the Constitution always applies, civil or criminal. If CPS workers interrogate parents or children (who may be adults for all they know), without informing them that what they say can be used against them in a court of law, then the testimony they obtain, CANNOT be used in a court of law.
"Flds seems to be able to pay for all the suits of UEP and Parker law firm, but they cant afford to pay for attorneys for their children?"
If the state had limited their actions to only those that they could legally take custody of, there would be ZERO attorneys needed.
I got a giggle out of your approach though. If any church member in the USA wishes to utilize their constitutional right to an attorney, but cannot personally afford one, their church should pay for it!!
Z,
I am not sure about the child in that case. It seems like another of those 'exceptions to your rights' we read of so often today!
Kdp
Since when is Flds a church? They are a registered LLC, not a church.
Were their "church" doors open to anyone who wanted to come? OH I forgot they never had a church. YFZ has a temple, but its behind locked gates. hmmmmm, so how many converts did they have in this so called church? NONE!
None of the women and children were under arrest, they were moved from the ranch so they could interview them. It was for sure, they couldnt do it at the ranch.
Church
a building for public Christian worship.
public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
If the CPS gave the parents the impression that they had no choice but to comply with the interrogation of themselves and their children, then that testimony was coerced and therefore illegal, particularly if the CPS agent had no probable cause to believe those particular children were at immediate risk of abuse. See the Gates case ruling for an explanation of when it's illegal to pull children aside and interrogate them.
I wish the lawyers would start to pick apart the events of the ranch raid, and determine exactly what questioning was illegal and what wasn't. That would clear things up.
As it stands, the majority of the state's case is based on testimony and materials from the ranch raid, which from what I can tell was obtained without particularized probable cause.
ztg
The case is now criminal investigation. Remember, it wasnt Just CPS, the FBI had a warrant also.
CPS can interview children they suspect of abuse in any form. The mothers of the children were there.
kbp-
I'm not sure if parents have the "right" to counsel in the initial investigation...when CPS first came to the ranch...
I think the right to counsel kicks in when they make the decision to take emergency custody...and in this case, it fell outside the typical emergency custody determination because they had a court order....
I don't know all the nuances of Texas, but I do know that rights, etc. are not the same and do not kick in at the same time.....
z-again, apples and oranges...we're not talking criminal court, here...well, at least not at the earliest juncture where the children were taken into custody...
A child can be removed, there can even be a founded case of abuse or neglect without any criminal charges ever being brought.....
So theoretically, what a parent says can be used to prove neglect, or abuse, but it isn't "against" the parent, it is in the interest of the child...
"CPS can interview children they suspect of abuse in any form. "
-----------------
That's not what the Gates ruling says. CPS workers need to be able to articulate probable cause of abuse specific to the children of that family. The ranch is not one family. They never articulated probable cause for the vast majority if not all of those children when they entered the ranch. They just went in and demanded the children be brought out. That is illegal. That is not how a government should operate.
So are you saying, reric, that a CPS worker can go up to any parent in any house and interrogate them, and then turn over the notes from that interview to LE, so that LE can use it in a criminal case?
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING??? Sounds pretty unethical to me. Sounds like a loophole in the justice system, to get around the necessity of reading a person his rights whenever an interview takes place, in which the words spoken can later be used against the interviewee.
reric, you say losing a child isn't an act against the parent. I suppose you think that the loss of child basically isn't punishment. The parent should feel nothing. The state is indifferent, so the parent should be likewise indifferent to the loss of their children. They shouldn't take it personally, or feel like their being punished, or feel like the state is taking action against them.
I BEG TO DIFFER.
I think the taking of one's children fits the description of cruel and unusual punishment.
kpb,
You're the one fascinated with Malonis and making up stories, I could give a rip except to point out that you are being inventive.
Witness tampering. Lawyers were telling the women not to say who the father of the children were. That's been admitted even by the FLDS women themselves. There is one account on line that admits that. Not to give full names, not to answer questions about dates of birth, dates of marriage, etc. Now who, exactly, does THAT protect? Hint: it's neither the woman nor the child. If the lawyer tells you to lie and/or withhold basic information about who you are, it's witness tampering.
ziggy asked "So are you saying, reric, that a CPS worker can go up to any parent in any house and interrogate them, and then turn over the notes from that interview to LE, so that LE can use it in a criminal case?"
Pretty much. Whether it's a loophole for oppression or a necessary tool in taking care of children's rights is up to discussion.
ztg the new ruling just happened last month!
Yes, from this point on CPS will have to do things differently. But, it has NOTHING to do with this case they are investigating now.
The adult women with the children were there voluntarily to be with their children. Since they were not being charged with any crime or held against their will, I do not believe that they have rights to consul. Also, the advice they were getting was definitely not in their or their children's best interest. In fact, if the women had given factual information from the start the children may very well have not been removed from the ranch at all.
I'm all for civil disobedience as an instrument for change. But I'm sick of this business of breaking the law, hiding from prosecution and then blaming everyone else for religious persecution. If you chose to break the law for your religion, stand up and admit it and work for change. But, IMHO, the fundamentalist mormons want to do whatever the heck they want and answer to no one for it. I have no respect for that; it is a naive sort of anarcy.
Ztg, how do you pull crap out of the air! No one said a parent wouldnt be hurt or upset if a child was pulled out of the home!
But, What If a child was being physically abused by a member of the household? Would you prefer the parent keep the child they were abusing?
ztg said:
I BEG TO DIFFER.
I think the taking of one's children fits the description of cruel and unusual punishment.
********************
Well you can differ all you want, but if CPS goes in a home where there is abuse taking place, where children are being harmed physically or sexually, then Tough tooties!
No child should have to stay in a home where they are being abused.
z-
I was speaking from the perspective of the legal system. Not what my personal opinion is...
I agree with you, taking a child from his/her parents is a huge deal....and for most parents that experience it, it is the most painful thing in the world....
That is why it is supposed to be only in the case of imminent danger...and it is why all CPS agencies, across the country, are supposed to have plans for reunification for every child...unless, of course, the parents are true monsters...and there are a few of them that are.....
Marie,
Your arguments are just funny. You talk the Texas talk as if "allegations" and "indictments" are proof of a crime. Already the 2 higher courts of Texas have ruled that CPS overstepped the line. CPS is already convicted in this case, in other words. All those "allegations" against the FLDS are unfounded, and unproven.
Funny how nobody is denying that the raid was based on religion anymore. Every allegation of child abuse in this case includes the word FLDS. Child abuse is child abuse regardless of religion, but somehow people like you assume that the FLDS religion IS the abuse because they broke Texas LAW, that was changed to attack the FLDS.
ME
I dont know if the men indicted or guilty or not, no one does, till they go to court and all the evidence is shown.
However i dont believe GJ indict people frivolously.
YES the law was changed, way back in 2005, this is 2008, marriages were performed in 2006, with Jeffs knowing they were against the law.
IM for prosecution of anyone marrying illegally underage to be punished, matters not to me is they are religious or atheist.
betty, it protects the mothers. If the mother says her son's father is the same father to another woman's son, and CPS turns this information over to LE, which they did, that would incriminate the mothers.
The lawyers were rightly telling the mothers what they say could be used against them, because CPS weren't telling them that.
ME
How do you know all the allegations are false? I dont think anyone knows, we havent seen all the evidence.
The two higher courts didnt rule against investigations continuing Me. They ruled against taking the children under the prepubescent stage. The younger children.
They didnt rule against the Judge continuing the cases, thats what is the most important.
IF you have such proof that everything in evidence is false, please share with the rest of us?
ztg
As far as im aware, the mothers werent the ones being interviewed. it was the children.
The mothers were given attorneys for the children and themselves after the Judge ruled they would all be kept in custody at the 14 day hearing
marrie...
it takes next to nothing to get an indictment from a grand jury....it's not that they act frivously, it's that they don't require a level of proof...just reasonable belief that the crime has been commited...or whatever Texas' language is...
but the threshold for bringing in an indictment is vey, very low....
Marie,
Texas law: First lets say they're married, so we can get them for bigamy, then we'll say they're not "legally" married so we can get them for child abuse.
Are they married or not married? Sounds like Texas has a problem.
CPS took and interrogated children where there was no probable cause to justify that. Other than of course, they are FLDS -- which doesn't meet the standard of probable cause at all.
The men indicted, were indicted on more than one wife, legal, celestial whichever you prefer. Five of those men have underage wives, oops, 6 including warren jeffs. Three of those underage wives, have children.
Marrie,
Where is the proof Texas has of any abuse whatsoever other than they broke Texas LAW, which can also be disputed. There has to be a victim to be abuse right? Was this raid based on abusing "children" or for bigamy? If Texas had any evidence, it would be plastered all over MSM.
In America people are innocent until proven guilty right? Oh yeah, this is 2008, so that rule doesn't apply.
"Pretty much. Whether it's a loophole for oppression or a necessary tool in taking care of children's rights is up to discussion."
-------------
The Constitution applies to civil law as well as criminal. People need to be read their rights, and they are not to be compelled to answer questions unless they know their words can be used against them. End of discussion.
Ztg, if you read the interviews the first night, they were questioning children about 'SARAH'
asking them their names, how old they are, who their parents were.
Those werent bizarre questions to ask children.
Same thing the next day, they were asking questions about Sarah.
Turns out there were several sarah, just not a sarah who was 16 and had a baby and was pregnant.
)ME
First, by law in texas you cant have more than one wife, legally or otherwise. Secondly, being married under the age of 17 requires parental consent of court order.
Third, its legal to have sexual contact with any girl until the age of 17.
The only one I dont understand is the guy who is dutson, he could of legally gotten married with parental consent and filing for a marriage certificate. But he didnt do that, why not?
betty:
"In fact, if the women had given factual information from the start"
THEY DID, it was assumptions that drove the bigoted CPS crew, not the answers to questions. When they asked for names they gave names, when they asked for ages, they gave ages, when they asked for ID, they gave ID, just because they didn't LIKE the answers, doesn not mean they were not true. Just because CPS "thought" they were lying, only incriminates those who WERE LYING, and that is OBVIOUSLY CPS minion Voss.
"I'm all for civil disobedience as an instrument for change. But I'm sick of this business of breaking the law, hiding from prosecution and then blaming everyone else for religious persecution."
Excuse me, but when your freedom is removed BY LAW then what are you talking about? You think the FLDS should TRY to go to jail? That is rediculous. The religious practice is older than Kansas, the laws were created to stop the religion, the religion went in the underground, the persecution is nothing different than Forcing conformity to Unconstitional Laws. The LAW is wrong, not the religion.
its NOT legal to have sexual contact with a girl under the age of 17
Marrie,
you can have your socialist world, but the rest of us want to live in the land of the free, where people have rights. You reap what you sow. What you are willing for others to suffer will come back upon you to the uttermost. What goes around comes around. What you send out will return to you.
Back on the topic, I hope Texas has fun paying all those lawyers on top of the other $30 million (and growing) fiasco. I guess its really the taxpayers that are paying for this mess of religious persecution. Even if Texas won their case based on prejudice and hearsay, America won't be any better off, and perhaps a lot worse off, since the constitution will be a thing of naught.
Pliggy we all have the same freedoms, and we all have to abide by the laws.
The law is to protect not only us as adults, but children.
The law in Texas consider anyone under the age of 17 a minor.
Not one of these men who married underage girls could of legally gotten a marriage license because they already were married, except ONE, Keith Dutson jr. whose father by the way Keith Dutson sr is also married to a 17 yr old, but has other wives.
marrie, they weren't just asking about sarah. They were asking peripheral questions, such as "what age do you think it's right to get married; would you marry a 50 year old" etc. -- leading questions at 3AM.
At any rate, they had no probable cause to get those girls out of bed in the first place. Those were separate homes they took those children from, and there was no more reason to believe that "Sarah" was in any of those homes, than there is to believe Osama Bin Ladin is somewhere in your neighborhood.
z: So are you saying, reric, that a CPS worker can go up to any parent in any house and interrogate them, and then turn over the notes from that interview to LE, so that LE can use it in a criminal case?
--
It's a well-known fact that CPS was & is serving as a funnel to the AG's office in this case.
The whole raid was based on the criminal case, not child abuse as many supposed when it first started. CPS is being used as a tool for the AG to enter without a valid search warrant, question children without their lawyers present, and hold them hostage as ransom for the women to admit they are victims. The DNA was ordered for the sole purpose of the criminal lawsuit, not to establish children/parental relationships that CPS continually lied about.
CPS has not even questioned the mothers about child abuse, or even checked on the children since they have been returned to the parents. All their questions are about the criminal case, which is why Barbara (mother of Marianne) held to her 5th amendment rights.
There is one thing missing in all this that Texas is desperately searching for, a VICTIM.
betty said:
The adult women with the children were there voluntarily to be with their children. Since they were not being charged with any crime or held against their will, I do not believe that they have rights to consul.
Since they were there voluntarily, not charged or being held in custody... I can't figure out how LE or anyone else could take their personal property-phones. Can you explain?
Do's and Don'ts if you're investigated
1. Do not talk to anyone.
2. Do not take a lie detector test.
3. Do not answer any questions.
4. Do not make CPS mad.
5. If CPS or the police take the child, or you are charged with any crime against a child, you need to retain a competent lawyer.
6. Do ask what you're being investigated for.
7. Tape record all conversations with CPS case workers and the police. If you do not have a tape recorder, make sure that you have a reliable witness at all meetings, interviews, and telephone conversations.
8. If you have a private doctor or psychologist, have them examine the child if you are ordered to have the child examined by a doctor not of your choosing.
9. After all meetings, interviews, and telephone calls, write a certified letter (keep a copy) to the person with whom you spoke. List the main points discussed and end the letter,
10. TAFA strongly recommends that if you did nothing wrong, DO NOT plea bargain (including no-fault). Many times, on the surface, these plea bargains seem like the easy way out, but are really only the beginning of a nightmare for you and your family.
11. Know your rights. This is very important, if you expect to win. Learn as much as possible about the laws in your state and the requirements CPS must fulfill to recieve their funding (for example, avoid placement of children in foster care and reunite the family as quickly as possible).
12. Join TAFA.There is strength in numbers, and the emotional support availible through joining with others who have similar experiences will prove invaluable. Write letters to your caseworker's supervisor, CPS director, county or state supervising agency--anyone who has responsibility to provide proper services. If you do not get a satisfactory response, contact your legislators and news service.
"1. Do not talk to anyone.
2. Do not take a lie detector test.
3. Do not answer any questions.
"
-----------
Wait a minute, wasn't someone just saying that *if only* the women had answered questions their children wouldn't have been taken?
Which is it? I guess damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sucks to be FLDS in Texas.
(not that the women didn't answer questions. They did. http://freetoseparate.blogspot.com/2008/08/flds-were-not-cooperative-hogwash.html )
The anti-"purport" to marry more than one wife law "protects" nothing but legalized bigotry. Nazi style control of religion, by law, is not JUSTICE It is UN-American. No we don't ALL have to abide by the same laws, because laws were not written to stop YOUR religion.
No, I am not saying CPS can arbitrarily go up to any parent and start asking all sorts of questions...what I am saying is, when they have a report to investigate, they can speak to the parents, other family members, teachers, coachs, friends, anyone who may be able to shed light, or offer information concerning the welfare and care of the child or children who have been purportedly abused or neglected.
The fact that in the inital raid they treated the entire ranch as one home, by extention then they could interview all the members of the home...
Of course we know it's all bull shit...and we are beginning to dig up enough 'circumstantial' documentation to fairly certainly establish that CPS and the Rangers also knew it was bullshit, BEFORE they went in...howere', until a court agrees with that supposition, all of the questioning, etc. is kosher...or according to hoyle if you don't keep kosher....
z- you keep wanting to superimpose what is moral and ethical over what is legal...and, unfortunately, in Texas, the twain shall never meet....
Hopefully, things will move through the lower courts and some of the issues can be brought before either a federal judge or a higher Texas court.....and don't forget, we have the suit filed in Utah which may be far ranging in it's impact...if it can be successfully used to test polygamy, it will make for some changes in all of the cases in Texas...or at least one would think...but Texas does seem to fly by the seat of it's levi's, all too often....
what we "know" in our gut...where the dots lead us...and what the law and lower courts allow....at least until someone with enough clout stops them, are two entirely unrelated things....
I love reading other people write all the things some of us were writing almost daily back in April and May and June....it is so nice to not be only one or two people....
If some of y'all stick around, I might actually feel like I can take a few days away from the keyboard!!!!!
txblogger took that information from a webpage about defending yourself from CPS. Not exactly impartial. >I< would not give that advice, from what I have heard about ordinary cases. Doing what it says on that webpage will get you in a lot of trouble. I can understand trying to document what happens, but refusing to even give your name or tell the age or parentage of the kids will without a doubt escalate the CPS case worker's suspicions.
I would not suggest that when you are pulled by a traffic cop that you refuse to show your driver's license, either. Unless you want to spend the night in jail.
ME
Freedom doesnt include breaking the law. Its not hard to follow the laws of the land.
Freedoms have a price! The first amendment doesnt protect lawbreakers, even religious ones.
Since my concern all along has been Children, I would expect, even children have rights to not be made to take part in illegal activities by adults who know better. Even Religious ones.
betty-
In the average case, you are absolutely right...one has to look for a balance between screwing ones self, and making nice to the CPS worker and convincing him/her that you're a good parent and your children are safe...
On the other hand, nothing about the Texas abuse/persection/illegal raid, etc. is typical.....
More and more it is becoming clear that it was a bull shit excuse to get inside that ranch and those homes and remove all sorts of things and have unfettered access to scared women, children, and fathers before anyone could stop them.....
It really was, and continues to be, the goal of Texas to drive the FLDS out of their state....
I don't think it would have made any difference, whatsoever, what questions were or were not asked or answered...the Rangers and CPS had predetermined the outcome...and if no one gave them what they wanted, they would lie...without batting an eyelash....
For those of us who have long term involvment with CPS, no one has ever seen such systemic abuse of power and damage to so many children and their families...and many of us have seen some pretty awful behavior from our national cadre of CPS types.....
betty,
Any parent is well within their rights to refuse CPS entry.
At the very least, it gives one time to speak to an attorney while CPS is off getting a search warrant. You can be nice when they return.
Risky? Yeh. Not doing so is more risky. You allow them into your home and they can walk out with your child if, for instance, they are 'green' and see a stack of dirty dishes in the kitchen sink. Or say, you bought your son a Mike's Hard Lemonade not knowing it was alcoholic. They held that kid for two days while they "investigated".
Yes, it's risky either way, but when word gets around and more parents start denying access without a warrant, it won't be as risky. It will be common and expected.
Given, that a kid is four times more likely to be killed or injured in their custody- when CPS walks out with a child a parent should require them to sign a soemthing stating that they take full responsibility for the well-being of the child while in their custody.
With those stats, I can't believe they're still allowed to be called "protective services", much less allowed to take kids into custody.
Marrie, over and over again you claim that your concern is for the children, yet you watched these NON-ABUSED children be torn from their mother's arms; you've (hopefully) read the letters by the mental health workers who saw the way CPS workers abused both mother and children, and if you haven't seen the video of Merrianne being forced back into captivity, you should.
If you've done those things, I honestly don't understand how you can claim that 'my concern is for the children.'
Ad litems and honest CPS workers were saying, IN COURT, that the parents were good parents and they did not suspect any abuse, and Walther STILL kept the children in custody.
What we need is ONE GOOD JUDGE and then maybe the innocent FLDS would have some justice and this religious persecution would end.
My concern, at this point, is that Merrianne be returned to her mother. There was absolutely NO reason for her to be forced into a stranger's home and culture. It was done specifically to punish her parents for not cooperating.
betty there's no analogy between a cop pulling one over and demanding to see one's drivers license and a mom being pulled over on the side of a sidewalk in her own neighborhood or backyard and demanded to see her kids birth certificates.
NO COMPARISON.
(unless you think child-bearing is a strictly regulated activity like driving a car. You aren't a democrat are you?)
marrie, they're not *your* children. Get over it.
I know they look cute on TV, and you want them to be safe, and you've heard so many bad stories about the people with whom they live. But they belong to their parents. I know that's a real difficult concept for you to grasp. But just try to see this through a parent's eyes. Put yourself in the parents' place. Just for a few seconds.
Then go back to your cocktails with the Ms. Voss and Janet Reno types, all the barren, liberal sticklers, who think they always know best about parenting, albeit only having been schooled in the abstract conerning such things.
Speaking of Ad Litems, did Debra Brown/ Children's Advocacy Center provide any? Could explain the discrepency between ALs.
Debra Brown, executive director of the Children’s Advocacy Center in Tom Green County, said that in a year her agency typically works with 271 children from a 10-county area. The advocacy center, which employs 10 full-time staff and 40 volunteers, provides guardian adlitems for children in state custody.
Voss is on the Board of Directors AND the Advisory Board of CAC: http://www.cactomgreen.org/page.php?kei=26
“This is a first for us,” she said.
Brown said her staff is reviewing books “related to their religion” so they can better understand the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. She did not specify what those books are, but just two books by ex-members of the faith are publicly available. [Gee, can we guess?] Best-selling author Jon Krakauer also wrote about the sect in his book on fundamentalist Mormonism.
Brown said Child Protection Services plans to do one-on-one interviews with the children so that 51st District Judge Barbara Walther can make decisions about what to do with them. No petitions have yet been filed in court, Brown said, though a CPS spokeswoman said the judge has ordered that 18 girls be taken into legal state custody.
Brown agreed that the experience of being removed from home is traumatic for children, but “I think it is in their best interest.
“When children live in a pretty secluded environment it is difficult to get them to open up,” she said. “If you give them a little space you are more likely to get them to open up to you.”
She described the FLDS children the same way other state emloyees have: Very quiet, respectful, well behaved.
~~
Did a quick search and indeed:
"Brown is with a local child advocacy group representing the children in legal proceedings."
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy795.html
"The guardian ad litems are willing to waive a conflict with the understanding that if problems arise, they will be addressed," said Debra Brown, the court-appointed Special Advocate in the case. "We will ask attorneys not to represent mothers and their children or adults and their sister wives in one family unit."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n25448235
Ummm, this is a good one:
"The relationship between me and Teresa has never been as bad as the public thinks," Malonis said Friday. "We talk to each other every day."
A hearing on the request - filed by Malonis, who said she wants to get a ruling on the matter - was scheduled for Monday but has since been postponed.
The report's purpose is to give Walther a recommendation ahead of that proceeding, said Debra Brown, director of the Tom Green County Children's Advocacy Center, which runs the district court's CASA program.
"We just feel that she's been represented well by the attorney that's been appointed for her," Brown said. "She's got an attorney that's fighting for her."
"The report is consistent with our investigation," said CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins, "and with the position we have taken in this case since the very beginning."
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2047818/posts?page=76
Also read she was appointed AL for "all" the children but can't find a link to substantiate that.
Ztg,
I have No idea if angie voss is married or has children, do you?
She is 36, how do you know she isnt married with 4 or 5 kids?
This is how I know. She's too occupied. Being the glue between the supposedly neutral CASA and the pseudo child-police department AKA the CPS, takes all of Angie Voss' time, no doubt.
Ztg,
Thats ridiculus excuse. Many women hold demanding jobs, and take care of their children and home life at the same time.
Many women hold positions on Boards also.
You cant judge her by that. lol
How do we know Angie Voss isn't married or has children? If she is married, it's to another woman. She's a lesbian, and that relationship doesn't produce children.
Notice it takes that type of person to feel good about ripping children away from their mothers. They can't even relate to a mother's feelings, let alone a child's.
In a ruling that could have widespread impact on the ongoing legal war involving the Fundamentalist LDS Church, the judge overseeing the polygamous sect's real-estate arm has ousted the law firm that used to represent it.
Rod Parker and the Salt Lake law firm Snow Christensen & Martineau were disqualified Wednesday from representing the FLDS Church and some of its members in a challenge to the reforms of the United Effort Plan Trust.
Desert News
ME
HAHAHAHHAAH,, prove to me she is a lesbian!